Ethanol not worth it? Study
John Lansford
Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of
dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but
a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they
produce.
Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner
than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers
another market to sell their produce.
But researchers at Cornell University and the University of
California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn
corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For
switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains
and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more
energy and for wood, 57 percent.
It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel
and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to
sunflower plants, the study found.
"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's
energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment,"
according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad
Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in
solar, wind and hydrogen energy.
The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing
the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported
ethanol production, said Pimentel.
The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government
subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each
year, payments that mask the true costs, Pimentel said.
--------------------------------------------
Perhaps not at the current gasoline prices, but wait until it hits
$4/gallon and let's see how those ethanol costs start looking.
John Lansford, PE
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
Monte Castleman
high density form of energy, not a source. You can get the ingrediants
and make it just about anywhere, not just unfriendly middle-east
nations, and to use it requires only minor changes from standard
gasoline vehicles.
Doesn't hydrogen also reqire more energy to produce than it contains?
Investing in wind and solar power would be great- they'd provide an
additional energy source to make ethanol for cars. How much money has
been spent trying to make a practical electric car with little to show
for it?
My energy policy: Build enough fast breeder nuclear power plants at a
single remote location to meet all our needs and wants. Equip it with
army reserves and anti-aircraft missles. Use some of the power to
produce hydrogen for transfer to other areas of the country, and ethanol
for cars. Switch most home uses to electricity. Tell the Saudis and
other countries that hate our guts to go fuck themselves...
--
--^\____
| / Monte Castleman, <<Spamfilter in Use>>
| / Bloomington, MN <<to email, remove the "q" from address>>
| |
| *| Visit my Minnesota Highways Page:
|_____\ http://home.earthlink.net/~northstarhighways
N8N
Monte Castleman wrote:
> No big shockers here. Ethanol should be more thought of as a convenient,
> high density form of energy, not a source. You can get the ingrediants
> and make it just about anywhere, not just unfriendly middle-east
> nations, and to use it requires only minor changes from standard
> gasoline vehicles.
Isn't there some research going into alcohol-fueled fuel cells? That
could easily tip the balance in favor of alcohol's practicality.
>
> Doesn't hydrogen also reqire more energy to produce than it contains?
>
Oh hell yeah, and there's no way around it. I really don't understand
the current fervor over hydrogen-powered this, that, and the other
thing. The only thing H2 is good for is as an energy storage medium
(assuming the end user is using a fuel cell) - trying to consider it an
energy *source* is about as intelligent as considering a dead car
battery to be an energy source.
> Investing in wind and solar power would be great- they'd provide an
> additional energy source to make ethanol for cars. How much money has
> been spent trying to make a practical electric car with little to show
> for it?
>
Actually there's been quite a lot to show for it, the energy storage
problem still has yet to be solved however. Once we get a reliable
energy storage system with enough density to practically power a
vehicle, electrics will suddenly become practical, as most of the other
bits have been at least in theory refined enough to be used today.
> My energy policy: Build enough fast breeder nuclear power plants at a
> single remote location to meet all our needs and wants. Equip it with
> army reserves and anti-aircraft missles. Use some of the power to
> produce hydrogen for transfer to other areas of the country, and ethanol
> for cars. Switch most home uses to electricity. Tell the Saudis and
> other countries that hate our guts to go fuck themselves...
>
Two questions, what are you going to do with the waste, and how are you
going to produce ethanol from electricity?
nate
Stephane Dumas
> Isn't there some research going into alcohol-fueled fuel cells? That
> could easily tip the balance in favor of alcohol's practicality.
>
Yes, more precisely in Ottawa, Canada by a company called Iogen, who made
ethanol via cellulose ethanol http://www.iogen.ca
Stéphane Dumas
Jay Maynard
> No big shockers here. Ethanol should be more thought of as a convenient,
> high density form of energy, not a source.
It's not that high density, having only about half the energy content per
gallon of gasoline. That's why it results in such terrible fuel mileage when
used as a motor fuel.
Even as fuel prices rise, these studies show that ethanol will never be an
economically viable choice. It simply costs so much in fuel to make that the
costs cannot be recovered at a price that accounts for its less efficient
nature.
Jay Maynard
[about nuclear power]
> what are you going to do with the waste
I agree with Larry Niven: our descendants are going to curse us for putting
all of those valuable radioactives out of their reach. Just because we don't
know what to do with it now doesn't mean we never will.
william lynch
Fine, and when we know what to do with it (and the mind-bogglingly
toxic byproducts of uranium mining) then I will consider nuclear
as a viable option. Not before. Niven is in large part a right
wing extremist in denial. Witness his frequent use of environmental
activists as villains similar to suicide bombers.
Jay Maynard
> Niven is in large part a right wing extremist in denial. Witness his
> frequent use of environmental activists as villains similar to suicide
> bombers.
Two words: Earth First!
Bill
"John Lansford" <jlns...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:47umd1pukp2912jmc...@4ax.com...
If it takes more fossil fuel to create the equivalent in ethanol, how are
higher gas prices going to help? That's just going to make it worse. Kind of
like "We lose money on every one we sell, but we'll make it up in volume."
- B
John Lansford
>
>If it takes more fossil fuel to create the equivalent in ethanol, how are
>higher gas prices going to help? That's just going to make it worse. Kind of
>like "We lose money on every one we sell, but we'll make it up in volume."
>
All the article said was it took more ENERGY to create ethanol than it
contained. Energy can come from lots of places other than fossil
fuels. But, once the cost of gasoline approaches the cost to make
ethanol, the two will become competitive.
Jay Maynard
> All the article said was it took more ENERGY to create ethanol than it
> contained. Energy can come from lots of places other than fossil
> fuels. But, once the cost of gasoline approaches the cost to make
> ethanol, the two will become competitive.
The cost of ethanol must be half the cost of gasoline for the two to be
competitive, since ethanol gives worse economy than gasoline by that much.
Sherman L. Cahal
Not really. There was an excellent article in last month's Popular
Science. You can even get increased HP if you have a turbocharger :-)
Rick Powell
distillery in a horse-drawn wagon, where the distillery is solar- or
wind-powered. Run pipelines from the distilleries to regional
distribution centers, and power the pipeline pumping stations by solar
or wind. Before leaving the distillery, load up yer wagon with sour
mash for feed for the mules and horses. Doesn't use a drop of oil.
Rick Powell
IDOT District 3
Monte Castleman
>going to produce ethanol from electricity?
Although some of the waste from fast-breeder reactors can be reprocessed,
obviously there's going to be some. Pending a better solution, I propose
just leaving it close to the cluster/s of nuclear plants, which are guarded
by the army. I agree that sticking future generations with the problem
isn't nice, but then again we got left superfund sites, misguided urban
renewal, and sewage choked rivers; The generations before that left us
clear-cut forests. Nuclear waste seems a smaller and more localized,
athough more permanent mess.
As far as producing ethanol from electricty, I know US farmland is
underutilized; I simply don't know if we have enough capacity to grow
enough crops to produce enough ethanol for all our vehicles. Perhaps if we
stopped growing crops that are traded with oil producing countries?
Otherwise, limited use of electric cars (for fleets and the second vehicle
in the family), or if fuel cells become practical.
Arif Khokar
>>The cost of ethanol must be half the cost of gasoline for the two to be
>>competitive, since ethanol gives worse economy than gasoline by that much.
Sherman L. Cahal wrote:
> Not really. There was an excellent article in last month's Popular
> Science. You can even get increased HP if you have a turbocharger :-)
Yes really. The subject is fuel *economy*, not horsepower. Maybe I can
get more horsepower out of ethanol as a fuel, but if my fuel economy
drops by 50%, that's not going to help me.
Paul DeRocco
>
> No big shockers here. Ethanol should be more thought of as a convenient,
> high density form of energy, not a source. You can get the ingrediants
> and make it just about anywhere, not just unfriendly middle-east
> nations, and to use it requires only minor changes from standard
> gasoline vehicles.
True, but it takes staggering amount of real estate to produce ethanol from
crops.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pder...@ix.netcom.com
Paul DeRocco
>
> Niven is in large part a right wing extremist in denial. Witness his
> frequent use of environmental activists as villains similar to suicide
> bombers.
Given that the FBI regards eco-terrorism as the main domestic terrorism
threat, that seems pretty reasonable.
Comrade Yamamoto
> Rick Powell <wrkap...@ivnet.com> had written:
> You could call it "artisan ethanol". Just think of the marketing
> opportunities!
>
>
Crikey! Call it "Fair Trade" too, Yuppies will pay $10/l for the stuff!
Maybe more! Bottle it with Peter Max labels, and ya get the Grateful
Dead/Phish/or whatever band goddam hippie wannabes listen to now crowd. Ca
ching!
--
Comrade Mister Yamamoto
http://mryamamoto.50megs.com
"I'm not putting my ass on the line because I had the opportunity to go to
the number-one business school in the country, and I wasn't going to pass
that up."
Cory Bray, University of Pennsylvania Business student, on why he's not
fighting in Iraq.
Rick Powell
being used for ethanol production, and there's a glut of ethanol on the
market. 4 billion gallons a year of ethanol is being produced each
year in the US, while we are using that much gasoline every 20 days or
so.
I think there is a more efficient ethanol bearing crop to be grown, or
starch-producing hybrids to be developed.
Pat O'Connell
> http://www.herald-sun.com/business/21-627336.html
>
> Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of
> dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but
> a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they
> produce.
>
> Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner
> than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers
> another market to sell their produce.
Ethanol is a very good oxygenate and octane booster for gasoline, but
doesn't pollute like MTBE (its main competitor as an oxygenate/octane
booster) if it gets into groundwater from an accident or a storage tank
leak. Ethanol, like gasoline, biodegrades over a relatively short time
period. MTBE does not biodegrade, and it fouls groundwater because of
its taste and odor.
As you have said, it takes more energy to make Ethanol than it releases
as a fuel. This implies that EtOH production for use as a primary fuel
doesn't make sense except as a way of turning one kind of energy into
another (such as turning the energy from grain plus energy from a
fission or fusion plant into liquid fuel).
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Larry Gross
same problem in that fossil fuel is needed to
produce them.
I guess with Ethanol.. we're talking about the
fossil fuel used to grow, harvest and process
but is the assumption that fuel-burning
vehicles and processing must use fossil
fuel vice ethanol itself ... or does it mean
that it would take more ethanol to fuel
the production than the production would
generate - more likely - right?
and same deal with hydrogen as far as I
can tell. The primary 'feedstock' for hydrogen
seems to be natural-gas and then of course
the energy required to extract the hydrogen.
If you want to know how viable (or not) a
particular new "method" is... don't pay
attention to Popular Science, et al - pay
attention to Wall Street - where people
tend to find the bottom line - money -
much quicker. :-)
Believe me, if a new source comes along,
that actually "works" (economically), the
folks on Wall Street will likely know before
those who rely on Popular Science for
their info. :-)
Craig Zeni
snip
>
> The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government
> subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each
> year, payments that mask the true costs, Pimentel said.
It also omitted the political impact of gov't supporters of ethanol -
keeps getting those congresscritters from the corn belt state re-elected...